How to make 'death knock' journalism more acceptable and sensitive

Chris Wheal, the journalist who found himself confronted by the journalistic reality of reporters engaged on "death knocks" when his nephew died (see here and here), is due to discuss the matter at the Press Complaints Commission next Monday.

In advance of that meeting he has put up a lengthy blog posting to air his thoughts and to canvass further opinion.

It requires detailed reading, so I'm going to restrict myself to looking at his practical suggestions for making the process less heart-breaking. First off, he thinks bereaved families should be given a leaflet asking if they are:

• Happy to sell the story to the highest bidder?• Happy to talk to each and every journalist interested?• Prepared to speak to one journalist only and have the information shared with the rest of the media?• Prepared to provide printed material only (including photographs)?• Wanting nothing to do with the press?

But who should give them the leaflet? Wheal wonders whether the PCC should do the job. But that is impractical, because of the immediacy of such events, the number of them, the geographical spread and the fact that the commission has such a small staff.

He raises the possibility of "a register of volunteers", but I think that's an unlikely idea too. Surely the best person to hand a family a leaflet is a local journalist, probably a Press Association or another news agency stringer? They will usually get to hear of the death first and they will, of course, be on hand.

If the PCC thinks it can compose a sensible, sensitive leaflet on the lines Wheal suggests – and I think his is a good starting point – then every PA reporter, news agency stringer and local newspaper newsroom could be provided with a batch of leaflets ready for such incidents.

Similarly, there is no reason why police liaison officers should not be provided with the leaflets to hand to families. Working with the local press, they could also have to hand a list of possible "media advisers", should a family wish to avail themselves of such a service.

Wheal deals with a set of hypothetical instances to illustrate what a media adviser could achieve on behalf of a bereaved family. He rightly says that there has to be an overriding public interest reason for a journalist/newspaper to ignore a family's wishes (such as reasonable, if not compelling, grounds for a suspicion that something like a crime had taken place).

But before I go, two important points he raises: it is wrong to send young, inexperienced reporters on "death knocks". How right he is about that. Second, he appeals to "old timers" (such as himself) "to get it out of our brains that because we did something a certain way it must always be done that way. Death knocks call for someone with experience, sympathy and an ability to almost offer a pastoral, caring service."

Many journalists will bridle at this comment, feeling their job is not some kind of social service. But think about it – what other justification can there be for knocking at someone's door and asking to write about the death of a loved relative?